Wow, first week of November! Just one more month away from the semester’s end. Keep up the hard work! This week, I want to bring to your attention a case involving two insurance companies who were relieved from liability in a tort lawsuit. Happy Reading!
The Defendant is the owner of an international ballet academy. The Defendant worked as an instructor at a Dance Studio which provided ballet lessons. The Plaintiff was a student taking ballet lessons at the Dance Studio. On one occasion, the Defendant convinced the Plaintiff to compete in the World Ballet Competition in Romania in March 2014. This was an event that was co-founded by the Defendant and the Defendant even served as a judge of the Competition.
On the flight to Romania, the Plaintiff claims the Defendant groped her under her clothes and once in Romania, repeatedly raped her in her room and put a drug in her drinks. The Plaintiff also alleged that the Defendant, “took advantage of her vulnerable position traveling in a foreign country where she did not speak the language”. The Plaintiff sued the Defendant in Superior court alleging sexual assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and negligence. The Defendant denied these allegations and in return, filed a counterclaim alleging defamation, tortious interference, and abuse of process.
The Defendant thereafter brought action against National Casualty (his employer’s insurance company) and Safety Insurance, Co. (his homeowner’s insurance) seeking a, “declaration that they had a duty to defend and indemnify”. National Casualty Insurance argued that it had no duty to defend the Defendant because, “the alleged misconduct fell outside the scope” of the Defendant’s employment duties. Specifically, the World Ballet Competition in Romania was beyond the interest of the Dance Studio the Defendant was an instructor at, and therefore, had no obligation to defend the Defendant for any claims brought against him related in this case. The National Casualty further stated that, “those alleged accidents self-evidently served only the [Defendant’s] interests and therefore, he cannot claim status as an insured party on that basis”.
Once that attempt failed, the Defendant resorted to his homeowner’s insurance, Safety Insurance, Co.; however, the Defendant’s homeowner’s policy states an exception which prevents coverage of “business pursuits”. The court found that, “it is uncontested that any injuries suffered by [the Defendant’s] alleged acts occurred out of the country on a work-related trip…under these circumstances, regardless of whether [the Defendant’s] alleged actions were motivated by personal or business reasons, any resulting injuries arose out of or in connection with [the Defendant’s] business pursuits, and thus are excluded”. Therefore, both the National Casualty and Safety Insurance, Co. were relieved from liability.
Massachusetts Lawyer’s Weekly Volume 49, No. 42
Do You Believe the Right Decision was Made by the Court?
Yes, this was the right decision. Both insurance companies had no obligation to defend this defendant as with National, the misconduct fell out of the scope of employment and with Safety, the provision has an exception for business pursuits. Both of these hold up here.
ReplyDeleteI'm happy to see you take a position on this case, Cathy! Your involvement in assessing the decision of current cases is rewarding to your legal career and others. Thanks for the comment!
Delete